Thursday, 30, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

D.S.V. Satyanarayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 731 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 731 AP
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D.S.V. Satyanarayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 February, 2021
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION No.2979 of 2021
ORDER:

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is

filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

"....issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order, dated 13.03.2020, issued by the 4th respondent herein where under petitioner has been terminated on permanent basis by way of non-renewal of employment as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders....."

2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that he was appointed as

Field Assistant, by proceedings, dated 18.07.2007, and was converted as

Fixed Tenure Employee, code - CRD No.13341 was allotted to him and

provident fund was also fixed to him; that the petitioner filed

W.P.No.21356 of 2019 questioning the order of termination, dated

18.11.2019, this Court, by order, dated 02.01.2020, directed the petitioner

to file a representation before respondent No.3 - the District Collector and

further directed respondent No.3 to dispose of the same within four

weeks, but on purported compliance of the same, respondent No.4 - the

Project Director, District Water Management Agency, passed the

impugned order, dated 13.03.2020, terminating the contract of the

petitioner as Fixed Tenure Employee, by way of non-renewal of contract

of employment. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.2

issued a letter, dated 14.05.2019, extending the period of contract of

Fixed Tenure Employees from 01.05.2019 to 31.03.2019 and the same

was extended again on 17.03.2020 from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 for a

period of twelve months, as the contract is to be extended yearly, 2 MSM,J W.P.No.2979 of 2021

respondent No.4 passed the impugned order, dated 13.03.2020,

arbitrarily.

4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating

the contentions urged in the writ petition, has drawn the attention of this

Court to the common judgment, dated 31.12.2015, of the common High

Court in W.P.Nos.27468 of 2015 and batch, specifically to paragraphs 111

and 112 thereof and on the basis of the same, the petitioner contended

that the impugned order is illegal and requested to set aside the same.

5. Whereas, Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for

MGNREGS (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee

Scheme) appearing for respondent No.4, has fairly conceded that the

impugned order was passed by respondent No.4 - the Project Director on

behalf of respondent No.3 - the District Collector and therefore, it is in

contravention of the direction of this Court in the order, dated 02.01.2020,

in W.P.No.21356 of 2019.

6. As seen from the order under challenge, whereby the contract of

the petitioner as Fixed Tenure Employee was terminated and the

individual was removed from service permanently, after conducting

personal enquiry, it was passed by Ms.M.Syamala - the Project Director,

but not by the District Collector. Therefore, the impugned order is in

contravention of the order, dated 02.01.2020, in W.P.No.21356 of 2019.

7. On the above ground alone, the impugned order, dated

13.03.2020, passed by respondent No.4, is liable to be aside and the

same is hereby set aside, while directing respondent No.3 - District

Collector to follow the direction of this Court in the order, dated

02.01.2020, in W.P.No.21356 of 2019; the guidelines issued by the

common High Court in the judgment, dated 31.12.2015, in 3 MSM,J W.P.No.2979 of 2021

W.P.Nos.27468 of 2015 and batch, and also strictly adhering to the

guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj from time to time

in this regard.

8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 09th February, 2021 GHN

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter